bolero wrote:Yeah, it was too lopsided those days. These days all teams are equally good. It's not like Australia VS Zimbabwe.

Ranji has become competitive

Yes, Ranji nowadays has some sides that in the 1970s were total walkovers.Teams like UP, Saurashtra, Gujarat, Railways (sorry, Atul!) were a joke at that time. Maharashtra was just average. Rajasthan was just half-decent.

To be honest, there were only 3 really good teams then, with a competitive 4th team, and a slightly competitive 5th team.

The Mumbaikar started well, but couldn't keep up the momentum.And when toast-of-the-season Pandya went in 2 deliveries, it suddenly became a challenge, especially considering Dhoni is nowhere near the player he once was.

Congratulations, NZ! I thought 196 might not be enough in Rajkot - turned out to be well more than enough.

Winning by 40 runs in a T20 game - quite a thrashing for the losers. :-)

Virat's loved in India and his averages are impressive but to me he is more of an accumulator like Amla (good in most situations but not all) than a power player who can pull off the unlikely like ABDV.

For me this is why I just do not think he's in the Viv and ABDV echelon and their impact, both potential and actual, on any match. He and Amla are quite different as accumulators.

Virat is getting better at finding and clearing the boundary tho and still has years to develop.

"Your inclination to assume and contradict is typical of Narcissism which is nothing about being pretty like the Narcissus fable."

If and when Virat starts getting an SR of 190-200, like a Gayle or an ABDV, he'd top the Fear Factor ratings for the opposition.Right now, with his 130-140, he's still one notch below them.Not even sure he can up it too much though, without upsetting the rest of his game.ABDV, for example, plays a lot of 360-degree shots - Virat's batting style is conventional and "coached'. If Virat were to improvise too much, it might mean a lot of cheap dismissals - not sure we want that.If he can pack more power (or get a better bat) to trust going over the ropes with confidence, without changing his basic shot range, then yes.

In ODIs, where you have 50 overs to bat, Virat is invaluable. His value in T20s is slightly less, given you have only 120 balls to play - and you're looking at guys who can clear the ropes consistently. Gayle, ABDV, Carlos Brathwaite, Hardik Pandya, Colin Munro....

In a sense, Steve Smith is probably similar to Virat, though he plays a lot more risky and unconventional shots. But even he doesn't go for the sixes all the time.

P.S: Just checked Smith's record. His ODI and T20 stats are WAY below those of Kohli. Smith is a Test giant, yes, but otherwise just another player in other formats. In fact, with a T20 SR of 122 (and avg of 21), not sure what he's doing in a T20 side.

raja wrote:If and when Virat starts getting an SR of 190-200, like a Gayle or an ABDV, he'd top the Fear Factor ratings for the opposition.Right now, with his 130-140, he's still one notch below them.Not even sure he can up it too much though, without upsetting the rest of his game.ABDV, for example, plays a lot of 360-degree shots - Virat's batting style is conventional and "coached'. If Virat were to improvise too much, it might mean a lot of cheap dismissals - not sure we want that.If he can pack more power (or get a better bat) to trust going over the ropes with confidence, without changing his basic shot range, then yes.

In ODIs, where you have 50 overs to bat, Virat is invaluable. His value in T20s is slightly less, given you have only 120 balls to play - and you're looking at guys who can clear the ropes consistently. Gayle, ABDV, Carlos Brathwaite, Hardik Pandya, Colin Munro....

In a sense, Steve Smith is probably similar to Virat, though he plays a lot more risky and unconventional shots. But even he doesn't go for the sixes all the time.

P.S: Just checked Smith's record. His ODI and T20 stats are WAY below those of Kohli. Smith is a Test giant, yes, but otherwise just another player in other formats. In fact, with a T20 SR of 122 (and avg of 21), not sure what he's doing in a T20 side.

Amla, KW, Virat have found ways to accumulate swiftly but they're accumulators - not destroyers. If NZ scores 400 in an ODI - I'm not looking for a KW or Taylor score but rather a Guptil one. For India Id be looking for a Rohit, Shikar, maybe Yuvi one or perhaps some serious Pandya icing. For WI, Gayle or Lewis.

Smith has expansive shots - over long on - but it was noticable with Pune in T20 that he takes a while to get going. Warner tho - has ALL the gears and shows this time and time again. He just hasn't quite reached Viv and ABDV calibre, yet.

Lynch, Maxwell, even test tripple centurions Gayle and McCullum (his record is pretty good in Asia and vs Asian teams tho) are more sluggers and not in the batsmanship of ABDV, KW, Root, Amla, Smith and Kohli standards.

Root I have seen dominate and tear attacks apart like an ABDV or Viv far more than KW, Kohli and Smith do. But he has to do it more often for the reputation to stick cos his career SR does not overly support this being slower than Kohlis. Then again - will captaincy and Englands weak top order cause him to play more introspectively than what he did in WT20 2016?

"Your inclination to assume and contradict is typical of Narcissism which is nothing about being pretty like the Narcissus fable."

I have a confession to make. I've never watched Root bat.The thought of him coming to the crease depresses me so much that I can't bear to see him get another big score.I follow the scorecard but don't want to watch him bat.

raja wrote:I have a confession to make. I've never watched Root bat.The thought of him coming to the crease depresses me so much that I can't bear to see him get another big score.I follow the scorecard but don't want to watch him bat.

Look at Wt20 scorecards from 2016 then, in particular Eng v SA.

"Your inclination to assume and contradict is typical of Narcissism which is nothing about being pretty like the Narcissus fable."

I just watched highlights of this game, and what struck me was how "un-Amla-like" Amla plays striking at nigh 200 with a lot of heaved slog shots including cross-bat. It looks ugly, but surprisingly effective. Faf suffocated the Safrican innings of 229 with 17(17).

"Your inclination to assume and contradict is typical of Narcissism which is nothing about being pretty like the Narcissus fable."

Although NZ lost both ODI and T20 series, they were both very close, so it was an enjoyable contest between these two sides.That is what I look for - a contest.Full credit to NZ, for performing so well in Indian conditions.